Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already covers the read-only nature. The description adds that the tool requires project context and that it searches across specs/endpoints, which is useful context. However, it does not describe the return format, pagination behavior, or any edge cases. Since annotations cover the safety profile, the description provides modest additional transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loading the primary action and then providing usage guidance. It is concise and without fluff. It could be slightly more structured but is efficient and easily scannable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple search tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main usage, prerequisite, and what it returns. It does not explain the exact output structure, but that is not critical for a search tool. The description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (query and limit) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds little beyond restating that it matches by name/path/description, which overlaps with the query parameter description. Baseline is 3 because the schema already handles parameter semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'search', the resource ('API specs and endpoints in the active project'), and the matching criteria ('by name, path, or description'). It distinguishes from get_dashboard (counts/activity) but does not explicitly exclude search_portal_docs, though the resource is clearly different. Overall, the purpose is specific and unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use this to find specs and endpoints by text') and provides an alternative for a different use case ('for the project's counts and activity use get_dashboard'). It also notes the prerequisite ('Requires project context'). This gives clear guidance on when to choose this tool over a sibling.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.